D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Hussar]

So then after the problem is fixed what do you want to happen?

And also, lol at Eladrin vanishing into thin air. I see what you did there.

How is the problem fixed? Those that liked eladrin as a player race are out in the cold. Those that liked eladrin as a monster are also SOL. They aren't in the monster manual. Nobody wins. This huge issue that people were freaking out about frequently was fixed by completely removing it from the game. Nobody wins.

 

[Hussar]

As the player of that gnome, I'd really disagree with that description. He completely resembles a Dragonlance gnome. He's going in a direction I don't think Dragonlance gnomes have gone before, since he's my character and not Weiss/Hickman's character, but the roots of everything that shapes his character are entirely consistent with and inspired by the descriptions of Dragonlance gnomes. He in no way violates what DL gnomes are or stand for, and, in fact, he operates entirely within their logic.

I did this specifically because I was interested in playing a character that had some special significance in Dragonlance. I wanted to work with Dragonlance history, Dragonlance archetypes, Dragonlance mythos. If I was playing a gnome in an Eberron game, or in a Greyhawk game, it would be an entirely different kind of character.

And I don't do this because I especially give a flip about DL lore (I've never read the books), but because if I'm going to play DL, I want to play a character that, if they were not in that setting, would lose something. Railing against destiny and the Balance just doesn't have the same meaning in a setting where those things are not very important.
/snip

Hrm. Let's see. An athiest character in Dragonlance - non-canon. A spell casting gnome in Dragonlance - non-canon. Wild mage in DL. Non-canon.

What canon element do you see in this character? He does not create rube goldberg esque contraptions. He does not speak at high speed. He's an atheist that actively denies the gods in a setting where the whole point of play is returning the gods to their rightful place.

Note, it's a facinating character. The campaign is totally great for having him. I LOVE the character. Please do not take what I'm saying as a negative criticism. It's not.

But canon? Not even remotely.

And that's the issue that I'm having. You're saying that canon is very important but every character I've seen you play challenges the basic conceits of the setting. A plain human that hates technology in a Trans-humanist SF campaign where the rest of the party are basically demi-gods. A water summoning druid in Dark Sun. An atheist in Dragonlance. So on and so forth.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], would you have a problem with 4e or 5e Tieflings having random physical traits using the Planescape tables, instead of set ones?

Again, I'm not a canon guy. I really couldn't care less. Take canon out behind the barn and put a gun in its ear for all I care. It's your character, play what you want.

And, IME, that's how it goes. To me, canon is a DM issue. Players by and large couldn't care less. I pitch a campaign and hand out a setting guide. One player maybe reads it, and makes a character that fits. Three players make characters that are pretty generic and could be set in more or less any setting if you filed the serial numbers off and one player will deliberately choose a character that challenges the campaign conceits.

IME, that's how it always goes. Pitch a PHB only races campaign and that one player will come to the table with a half-ogre. So on and so forth.

Players will barely register the setting they're playing in, let alone care about canon changes.

 

[Maxperson]

But what if within canon someone went back it time and changed history, and the fall out became that setting?

That might be awesome. It would really depend on if I liked the change or not. If I did, I'd use it. If I didn't, I'd ignore it. If I liked portions, I'd modify it.

 

[Maxperson]

What canon element do you see in this character? He does not create rube goldberg esque contraptions. He does not speak at high speed. He's an atheist that actively denies the gods in a setting where the whole point of play is returning the gods to their rightful place.

Canon is that gods exist in DL. It is not canon that no atheists exist. In fact, in a setting where proof of the gods haven't been seen in hundreds of years, many atheists would arrive on scene believe that they never existed and were just old stories. I could totally see an atheist partaking in that adventure to prove to his fellows that the gods don't exist via failure to bring them back.

 

[Shasarak]

How is the problem fixed? Those that liked eladrin as a player race are out in the cold. Those that liked eladrin as a monster are also SOL. They aren't in the monster manual. Nobody wins. This huge issue that people were freaking out about frequently was fixed by completely removing it from the game. Nobody wins.

The problem is fixed by those people who like and use Eladrin to continue to like and use Eladrin as they have been liking and using Eladrin.

Personally I would rather see something for Warforged then Eladrin.

 

[jayoungr]

no, just exploring the ideas, I'm not trying to change your opinion, just seeing if there is any validity in it,
not an attack,

Well, I'm glad to hear that. But really, getting too far from canon for my comfort is one of those "I know it when I see it" things.

If I were running your time-travel Eberron game, and if I felt like the changes to Warforged were taking me out of the setting, I might declare it an alternate universe created by the actions of the PCs.

 

[jayoungr]

Bingo. We change Eladrin back to angel elves (are they even in the Monster Manual? I can't remember)

They're in the DMG as an example in the race creation section.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Hrm. Let's see. An athiest character in Dragonlance - non-canon. A spell casting gnome in Dragonlance - non-canon. Wild mage in DL. Non-canon.

Not true in any case, as far as I can tell.
[sblock=dragonlance diversion]
Most NPC's in DL believed the gods have abandoned them, and those that know the history know that people abandoned the gods (and for dang good reason). Most people in DL are nonbelievers - true believers are a rarity. Furthermore, here's what Races of Ansalon has to say on the topic of gnomish religion:

Faith in the gods, however, is a difcult concept for most gnomes to comprehend. While the few gnomes of the Philosophers Guild have grasped the concept, an average tinker gnome tends to rely on what he can touch with his own hands. He understands the basics of holy weapons and artifacts, but not placing his entire life in the hands of an unseen deity of immeasurable power.

Wild magic is "the oldest form of magic" according to the wiki, and linked to the Greygem, which features prominently in the gnomish origin story. And I don't see any mention of gnomes being unable to wield magic in the 3e CS - they even have a "technically renegade" magical guild.

What canon element do you see in this character? He does not create rube goldberg esque contraptions. He does not speak at high speed. He's an atheist that actively denies the gods in a setting where the whole point of play is returning the gods to their rightful place.

DL gnomes are inventors, and their inventions are dangerous, flashy, and impractical. Wild magic is dangerous, flashy, and impractical, and my gnome's ability is applying the "invention" theme to the world itself, creating dangerous, flashy, and impractical side-effects of trying to create a better world/future.

"The world" is his contraption. Everything that applies to a thing of wood and metal and gears and steam, for this gnome, applies to Krynn itself. He talks fast - that's half his mad babbling. And I'd sorely dispute your assertion about the "point of play" in the setting - from the 3e book, since I've got it open, gnomes are motivated by their Life Quest (which my character has, though it hasn't come up, related to furthering the knowledge of the cruelty of the gods).
[/sblock]

And that's the issue that I'm having. You're saying that canon is very important but every character I've seen you play challenges the basic conceits of the setting. A plain human that hates technology in a Trans-humanist SF campaign where the rest of the party are basically demi-gods. A water summoning druid in Dark Sun. An atheist in Dragonlance. So on and so forth.

That's like saying Luke Skwalker isn't a "canon" character because Jedi are a nearly lost order of knights in the setting. My characters are based in the lore of the setting. Opposing AI, being Amish, bringing rain to the desert, a mad inventor of fate - all of these characters are characters that, in any other setting, would not carry the same meaning.

That's why I say that setting lore is important for stories. If you decide Dark Sun should be a world that's stone age but maybe NOT environmentally devastated, you've removed the cool story of trying to bring rain back to it. If you change Dragonlance into a world without a Cataclysm or a Balance, defying the gods is less meaningful. If your transhumanist setting *offers* Amish as PC options, it's not playing against the setting to choose something it explicitly offers!

I think you may have an overly narrow view of what is encouraged in settings in general, and possibly an erroneous one when it comes to certain settings.

 

[Hussar]

And I don't do this because I especially give a flip about DL lore (I've never read the books), but because if I'm going to play DL, I want to play a character that, if they were not in that setting, would lose something. Railing against destiny and the Balance just doesn't have the same meaning in a setting where those things are not very important.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-setting-quot-canon-quot/page25#ixzz4NP4Mlgsj

And that bolded part is pretty much the end of the argument. How important is canon when you cannot even be bothered to learn the canon in the first place? All your quotes are second hand, after MUCH revision to the setting. Wild Magic is added to the setting LATE in 2e. A good ten or fifteen years after the setting is released. Actually, that's a perfect example. Something is retconned into the setting because it happens to appear in some supplement later on down the road. If canon was actually important, wouldn't those retcon's be bad? After all, we're not supposed to start rewriting settings right? It's a bad thing to add, say, Abeir to Forgotten Realms, but, it's okay to completely rewrite how magic works?

And that, ladies and gentlemen is my entire point. "Canon is important" is just a shorthand way of saying, "Anything that changes that I don't like is bad and must be excised from MY setting/game lore". Whereas any change, no matter how much it changes canon, that is liked by the viewer is perfectly acceptable. It's just another way for people to force other people to play a specific way.